Holy Crap -E., I think you just illuminated a long running argument within my group.  And solved a conundrum I've had articulating feelings about RPGs.

Thank You!

Hallelujah!

Quote from: joewolzJudd himself sounded off here, along with many other theory folk.

That was a decent thread that I had entirely forgotten about.  Neat and thanks.

I wasn't laughing at the idea or concept of immersion.  I love it when the game get's heavy and I can smell the sweat in my fighter's helmet or whatever.  I love when the game world comes alive as much as anyone and it happens and happens often.

But I was chuckling over the constant internet arguments and debates over immersion that have nothing at all to do with immersion or even gaming but a kind of RPG identity politics where we choose our sides and defend our ways of doing things as if other people's ways will somehow muss up our own fun.

That was my chuckle, at the hot-button word immersion has become.

Thassall.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks for listening to the show, Joe.

Quote from: joewolzHoly Crap -E., I think you just illuminated a long running argument within my group.  And solved a conundrum I've had articulating feelings about RPGs.

Thank You!

Absent smoke and mirrors, it's pretty straight forward stuff. When someone tells you immersion is a "hot button" -- the latest Internet war, with passions flaring on both sides or whatever, or that it's all about Europeans who hate dice, or that it's something that's so esoteric it defies description, don't buy it:

There's usually a simpler explanation (their games/theory doesn't do immersion well). You'd be amazed what theory folks telling people Immersion doesn't exist or that it's bad-wrong or whatever can do to stir up Internet debate when there fundamentally isn't any.

In this case that's all that's happening.

Cheers,
-E.

But look, E., old chap. You say:

QuoteImmersion is often experienced as
Focus on the game so that awareness of exactly how much time is passing is secondary ("Time flies when you're having fun")
Emotional connection to what the character is experiencing (like feeling plesantly creeped out when hearing ghost stories around the campfire or feeling fired up while watching an action movie)
Vivid mental imagry of imaginary in-game events

This is, I suspect, a very common experience for most folks and it's an extremely common and valid goal in rpgs.

And I say, okay, if that's immersion then yes, been there. I recommend marijuana, but I agree with John Snead that LSD will ruin your immersion, not to mention your capacity to speak.

You also say:

QuoteImportant Note: Exactly what makes an RPG experience "immersive" seems to vary from person to person. Some classic things that, for some people, damage immersion (and thus their enjoyment of the game)
Stopping the game to look up rules
Playing out of character
Having very unrealistic things happen in the game (someone survive a point-blank shotgun blast to the head, or walking away from a 100-story fall)
Lots of out-of-character chatter or meta-game discussion
Distracting environment (noise, tv playing nearby, etc.)
Etc.

And I say, absolutely, those are all sorts of things that distract people from the fiction. Obviously, people will have different sorts of tolerances and affinities where mechanics are concerned.

So we're agreed. But I think the Forge stuff does handle that quite adequately: it's an accumulation of techniques, social agreements, certain sorts of rules etc. The word 'immersion' itself is to be scrutinized, as it has a range of meaning.

You might not like the Forge account, but it's coherent enough.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Remember that scene in Robert E. Howard's "Queen of the Black Coast" where Conan and Bêlit are talking about the gods and the afterlife and such, and he says that he doesn't think too much about it because the philosophers and such take care of that, while he prefers "the mad exultation of battle" and the pure joy of life, whatever it is, whether it's an illusion or not?

That comes to mind when I see people thinking so hard about gaming, like I used to.

I'm not saying it's pointless.  I'm just saying that I prefer to watch the blue blades flash and crimson, these days.  Been there, done that, came back, pass the ammo.

Gods yes.

Quote from: PakaBut I was chuckling over the constant internet arguments and debates over immersion that have nothing at all to do with immersion or even gaming but a kind of RPG identity politics where we choose our sides and defend our ways of doing things as if other people's ways will somehow muss up our own fun.

That was my chuckle, at the hot-button word immersion has become.
...
Thanks for listening to the show, Joe

Cool, that makes sense.  I really enjoy the show, and respect you and Jeff's opinions and thoughts.  My question wasn't asked as a dig on anyone's fun, I was just wondering when immersion became a hot-button issue.

I can't wait for 29!

Story and Narrative Paradigms in Role-Playing Games by John Kim is an excellent article that actually deals with this disconnect we're seeing over the "Immersion" word.  

QuoteProblems can arise within* games due to disagreements over the understanding and construction of narrative. A participant who understands RPGs as Collaborative Storytelling may get into arguments with another participant who understands them as Virtual Experience.

* And apparently when talking about games / game design as well!

QuoteExperiential players faced with storytelling play may complain about breaking suspension of disbelief, or lack of depth.

I started a thread in the theory section for further discussion of the article and Collaborative Storytelling vs Virtual Experience to try and move the theory discussion back out of the general forum.

Edit: Added the second quote

Quote from: droogBut look, E., old chap. You say:

And I say, okay, if that's immersion then yes, been there. I recommend marijuana, but I agree with John Snead that LSD will ruin your immersion, not to mention your capacity to speak.

You also say:


And I say, absolutely, those are all sorts of things that distract people from the fiction. Obviously, people will have different sorts of tolerances and affinities where mechanics are concerned.

So we're agreed. But I think the Forge stuff does handle that quite adequately: it's an accumulation of techniques, social agreements, certain sorts of rules etc. The word 'immersion' itself is to be scrutinized, as it has a range of meaning.

You might not like the Forge account, but it's coherent enough.

The Forge has a reasonable definition as far as it goes (looking in the glossary). The idea that it's less defined than other theory concepts is somewhat amusing.

But the real problem with the forge stuff isn't how it defines (or doesn't define) immersion -- it's where it puts it in the The Big Model and what GNS/TBM inherently believes about "story"

The Big Model's Broken on Immersion
I'll start with the model stuff. A quick review of TBM:

• What makes a game "fun" is achieving one of the three CA's.
• Techniques are used to realize CA's

But, contrary to GNS/TBM, immersion is a primary goal for many people and something a lot of people strongly identify with enjoyable roleplaying experiences.

Putting it in the technique layer (as TBM does) means that it's being described as a means to another end (realizing a creative agenda). This is simply an incorrect modeling of the experience and the goals of play.

It also mis-informs game design based on the theory (or would, if the theory were used for game design). Designing a fun game in GNS means focusing on realizing an agenda -- designing a game to realize a technique isn't especially meaningful in the model (in practice the model gets ignored during actual game design, but it has to be actively ignored in this case)

The miss-modeling of player goals is especially problematic when addressing a key design consideration for most players and game designers: how do you write or play a game so that you get a good story *and* maintain immersion?

Theory ought to help here, but forge theory doesn't...

Immersion, Story, and other  Problems for forge theory
Story is a big issue for forge theory and for many roleplayers. Getting a good story out of games is often a goal of players across a spectrum of preferences and games.

Forge theory believes that good stories don't "just happen" -- that to have story emerge someone (or someones) has to be intentionally guiding it. A huge amount of theory relates to issues with this (e.g. TITBB and power struggle, force, etc.)

The model is actually pretty convoluted on this issue because the forge's answer to effectively creating story is one that doesn't work for many roleplayers: play in Author stance in a game that allows shared authorial powers.

In other words, the forge's answer to getting a good story is to make all the players significantly more of a story-teller than they would be in a traditional game.

This can certainly work for some groups, but it doesn't work for everyone, and is actually incompatable with most people's definitions / needs for immersion (I can explain why I believe this, if necessary).

There are ways to get a good story without railroading or shared authorial power (beyond the traditional model). These don't require special games or radical ideas -- they do require a modicum of GM skill and craft but they don't need a revolution.

Answering this key question without a revolution more or less makes a lot of the alternative/niche-game movement irrelevant to most gamers. If I were adovcating a position that fell apart this quickly under scrutiny, I'd claim that Immersion was a meaningless and ill-defined term, too.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.The Forge has a reasonable definition as far as it goes (looking in the glossary). The idea that it's less defined than other theory concepts is somewhat amusing.

words...words...stuff...words...stuff

Cheers,
-E.

seriously, doesn't this whole thread belong in RPG Theory??  this is getting a bit much for the 'rpg-general'-type forum.  i mean, no offense, but we're going to scare people who might come here wanting a break from rpg.net/the forge.

Quote from: kregmosierseriously, doesn't this whole thread belong in RPG Theory??  this is getting a bit much for the 'rpg-general'-type forum.  i mean, no offense, but we're going to scare people who might come here wanting a break from rpg.net/the forge.

Yeah probably: any thread that begins "some theory people have been saying..." probably could go in the theory forum...

Cheers,
-E.

Thread moved to the Theory forum.

Whether in Games or Theory, I just want to thank you, E., for articulating some things that were never quite connected for me. Between your two posts, you made some things that were bothering me for reasons unknown, quite a bit clearer for me.

Quote from: JimBobOzMethod acting is of course acceptable in Hollywood. But I always find myself thinking of the English actor saying to the American, "my dear boy, why don't you just act?" Among some actors, the thought is that if you need to method act, it must be because you're a poor actor; if you can only portrary something you genuinely feel, you're not as skilled as someone who can portray something they don't feel. So, method acting is a sign of bad acting skill.

Just had to comment on this.

Simply, roleplaying isn't a performance art like acting is. In acting, the method is less important than the results because there is an ultimate goal of producing a product for an audience.

With roleplaying, the individual player is there at the table to produce fun for himself, and that might very well neccessitate using a particular play technique over its alternatives.

Quote from: PakaI wasn't laughing at the idea or concept of immersion.  I love it when the game get's heavy and I can smell the sweat in my fighter's helmet or whatever.  I love when the game world comes alive as much as anyone and it happens and happens often.

Neither of these is at the core of the "virtual experience" paradigm--as described by John Kim (I'd forgotten how on-point that article was). So bringing them up is exactly the sort of Humpty-Dumptyism I pointed to above.

QuoteBut I was chuckling over the constant internet arguments and debates over immersion that have nothing at all to do with immersion or even gaming but a kind of RPG identity politics where we choose our sides and defend our ways of doing things as if other people's ways will somehow muss up our own fun.

Not really. It has to do with people being told their reason for preferring one set of game mechanics over another is invalid.